Lyra (née The Huntington) | 252/258/264 Huntington Avenue | Fenway

Yeah that didn't seem serious to me. Especially because of the number of exclamation points.
 
FitchburgLine said:
Of course we all suffer! Any decrease in housing, and commercial stock has systemic impacts across the metro area, and affordable housing dies a death of a thousand cuts by a swarm of NIMBYism for each individual building. It's why if you want affordable housing you need as of right development without onerous parking, setback, FAR requirements, etc. Just because it's said in an overdramatic way by someone you don't like doesn't make it false.
Click to expand...

Apparently you didn't read my first post where I said to spare me extremely simplistic supply and demand arguments in re: overpriced housing markets! The poster in question wants tall buildings to satisfy some primitive to urge to derive satisfaction at looking at a skyline from a distance; I bear him no personal ill will but his arguments and the motivation for them are spurious. There are many reasons for the housing problems in Boston and simply crowing about supply and demand ain't the answer and certainly doesn't justify ignoring what I think most people on this forum care about, which is to cultivate a more livable and better city for everyone.

This one little stretch of Huntington is pretty much the last leg of it with any life left to it and any sense of organic-ness: the rest having been demo'ed and institutionalized from Copley to Brigham Circle. I don't support preserving old buildings or buildings with arches at all costs, but these buildings have feeling to them as does the surrounding area; having some corporate lobby — or a cold facade with a swanky restaurant inside — would in fact be disruptive to the character of the area unless done with great respect for what they're building into. The poster who blathers all over aB about bulldozing Mission Hill just so he can excited about seeing more towers has shown absolutely zero insight or thoughtfulness when it comes to the consequences of any building that may be built anywhere, as long as the building is tall. That's flippancy that cannot be allowed to go on without correction.

Yes: housing is pricey: building more towers will not simply change that and there are many economic reasons for that. The issue and solutions are far more complex and do include, as you said, relaxation of many of the restrictions that make development so incredibly and insanely difficult and costly in this city — including historical preservation. Boston cannot be allowed to become a museum, but it needs to consider the character of its neighborhoods as well... we cannot have a city dominated by towers with little concern for the ground level; if you want some tall buildings with cheap rents and don't care for street level, go move to the Rust Belt.
 
Last edited:
I'd be very interested in a model of housing supply that didn't have as a fundamental consequence of its basic logic the idea that marginal increases in housing stock produce marginal decreases in cost. Its quite odd to me that the "housing costs are infinitely complex!" line of argument never seems to acknowledge both that a multitude of factors exist, and that any given factor *is actually a factor*. If the cost of housing model depends on (a,b,c...z), to claim new housing wont reduce prices on the margin requires that housing supply NOT BE ON THE GIANT LIST (or that dP/dS is positive, in which case *shrug*), which seems very unlikely to me!
 
FitchburgLine said:
I'd be very interested in a model of housing supply that didn't have as a fundamental consequence of its basic logic the idea that marginal increases in housing stock produce marginal decreases in cost. Its quite odd to me that the "housing costs are infinitely complex!" line of argument never seems to acknowledge both that a multitude of factors exist, and that any given factor *is actually a factor*. If the cost of housing model depends on (a,b,c...z), to claim new housing wont reduce prices on the margin requires that housing supply NOT BE ON THE GIANT LIST (or that dP/dS is positive, in which case *shrug*), which seems very unlikely to me!
Click to expand...

I dont want to have a total derail here, but of course supply and demand is part of the equation... but it's not the end-all be all. The point is that whether or not THIS site gets a high rise or not does not determine overall housing supply, and there is never a case where the ends justify the means, period. There is no death by a thousand cuts because this site sucks for a high rise, and it'll be rightfully defeated by abutters if the street level sucks. Whether the motivations of the NIMBYs are just or not is immaterial to me because this site stinks and I'm highly skeptical this tower would ever deliver on a reasonable street presence for the last human segment of Huntington.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to veer OT, but what did Ginger's used to be? We ate there all the time in the early '00s, but the name escapes me.

EDIT: NM, it was Betty's Wok & Noodle.
 
In the spirit of stick_n_move's rendering update posts,
the website has a bunch of new renders:

c3_reduced.jpg

c1_reduced.jpg


More at http://www.mattesonco.com/huntington-ave
 
Thanks a lot. That's wicked nice. Let's roll.

i wonder if there's a way you keep the facade below and do some type of early modernism above that far-better matches the character of the early street wall, Symphony Hall and CS Park. And let's not forget how to get these projects started on the right foot in da Globe:

New tall tower will SOAR high above the BSO...... and cast major shadows all over the East Fenway and Back Bay....
 
Last edited:
The NIMBY'S at Symphony Hall across the street are already outraged because it will block one the the windows the Cellist uses for light to read the chart during Concerto 3 in B minor.
 
That looks pretty good as depicted... I think this would be a pretty good place for a tower of this height… But given the cultural landmarks in the area, I push for something even more daring than this one looks. This is a perfect place for a European style audacious structure.
 
The ground floor actually looks pretty good. Its too bad that whats there is much more important to keep....and should be.
 
The big issue is that it demolishes this "Old France" building. (the brick part to the right is staying) I think a facadectomy would be appropriate here. I otherwise love the tower and the added activation it promises, but they need to retain the historical street-wall.

Capture by David Z, on Flickr
 
DZH22 said:
The big issue is that it demolishes this "Old France" building. (the brick part to the right is staying) I think a facadectomy would be appropriate here. I otherwise love the tower and the added activation it promises, but they need to retain the historical street-wall.

Capture by David Z, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the entire facade as is need not be kept. I would recommend taking out everything between the arches and replacing it with glass to open up the ground floor, much like the BPL. The lower roof part next to it is expendable. Glass that all in with a nice open lobby.
 
Last edited:
datadyne007 said:
Agreed, but the entire facade as is need not be kept. I would recommend taking out everything between the arches and replacing it with glass to open up the ground floor, much like the BPL. The lower roof part next to it is expendable. Glass that all in with a nice open lobby.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The towers cool but honestly if they plan on tearing this down for a less than 400' anywhere usa tower I hope a nimby bolts them self to the front and refuses to leave. I dont know how its not obvious that a facadectomy is what should be done here. ITS OBVIOUS.
 
DZH22 said:
The big issue is that it demolishes this "Old France" building. (the brick part to the right is staying) I think a facadectomy would be appropriate here. I otherwise love the tower and the added activation it promises, but they need to retain the historical street-wall.
Click to expand...

The glassy section of the first few floors seems to approximate pretty closely the space of the existing facade of Old France. Maybe the developers anticipate saving the facade as a bargaining chip to get this height. If so looks like it could be done without too much pain.

Love the profile of this tower and the sandwiching of the side elevations. Aluminum cladding?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top